Not liking it has never been appropriate grounds for deeming a law unconstitutional.

The Government telling you have to buy health insurance? I can see the reason for car insurance but not health, and the fact that if you can be fined and or jailed? that it tells and further gives the government more regulations and power that it doesn't need?

At 6/25/12 04:45 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
The Government telling you have to buy health insurance? I can see the reason for car insurance but not health, and the fact that if you can be fined and or jailed? that it tells and further gives the government more regulations and power that it doesn't need?

Why? Because cars are valuable and humans aren't? The point of this though is so that there are alot more people buying health insurance leaving insurance companies with more money. This means that they'll be able to pay for the people who need the insurance money, and with competition this means that they will also have to charge lower prices for health insurance. More competition would mean better coverage for each person as the companies now have more ability to pay for each person's requests.

That sounds logical to me.

"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

Not liking it has never been appropriate grounds for deeming a law unconstitutional.

The Government telling you have to buy health insurance? I can see the reason for car insurance but not health, and the fact that if you can be fined and or jailed? that it tells and further gives the government more regulations and power that it doesn't need?

you're not going to be fined or jailed if you don't have health insurance. why would you not want health insurance, anyway? do you know how incredibly expensive health care is?

Not liking it has never been appropriate grounds for deeming a law unconstitutional.

The Government telling you have to buy health insurance? I can see the reason for car insurance but not health, and the fact that if you can be fined and or jailed? that it tells and further gives the government more regulations and power that it doesn't need?

you're not going to be fined or jailed if you don't have health insurance. why would you not want health insurance, anyway? do you know how incredibly expensive health care is?

If everyone is required to buy health insurance, then there has to be some sort of penalty for those who do not get it. (like driving without car insurance or license). Care to explain what kind of penalty if they do not get fined or jailed?

At 6/25/12 05:04 PM, Feoric wrote:
you're not going to be fined or jailed if you don't have health insurance. why would you not want health insurance, anyway? do you know how incredibly expensive health care is?

Actually, under the ACA, you would face a fine if you chose not to participate in Health Insurance. That fine is one of the main foci of the challenger's arguments against the law, as an unfair "tax" for inaction. Jail time, however, has never been a part of the ACA.

Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

At 6/25/12 04:45 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
The Government telling you have to buy health insurance?

Riiiight, because the government NEVER makes you buy anything for any reason...this one has been debunked so many times it should almost be an informal fallacy to keep repeating it.

I can see the reason for car insurance but not health,

Really? You REALLY can't see the need for health insurance? Then why the fuck are you even weighing in on this issue, you just proved by your ignorance you're not equipped to have an informed opinion.

and the fact that if you can be fined and or jailed?

That part I agree with your disagreement on...the problem though is that with the bullshit piece of compromise we got, this is the only way to make it properly work.

that it tells and further gives the government more regulations and power that it doesn't need?

This isn't about really giving the government "power" the people who got the power here were the insurance companies, because now everyone in America will be FORCED to be their customers. This law is a blowjob for big business. If we just had universal healthcare like the President wanted we wouldn't even need to have this conversation.

You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

This isn't about really giving the government "power" the people who got the power here were the insurance companies, because now everyone in America will be FORCED to be their customers. This law is a blowjob for big business. If we just had universal healthcare like the President wanted we wouldn't even need to have this conversation.

you're right, we'd be having conversation on topics more like this instead.

Besides, Obamacare was just the first step. 2nd step (If Obamacare isn't killed) is to bankrupt the insurance companies. once they're out of the way, there 'no choice but to implement a single payer system'

At 6/25/12 11:15 PM, Korriken wrote:
Besides, Obamacare was just the first step. 2nd step (If Obamacare isn't killed) is to bankrupt the insurance companies. once they're out of the way, there 'no choice but to implement a single payer system'

That's a very wild claim. You're going to have to support that, because all logic, and all evidence regarding the ACA show that it actually would be a massive boon to health insurance companies.

What I don't want is millions of people being dependant upon the government for healthcare, when said government is running multi-trillion dollar deficits, has enormous debts they can never possibly pay off, borrows $4 billion a day, only maintains the current level of revenue because the economy is being artificially propped up by investors who think the economy is 'recovering' (spoiler alert: It's not) and who see america *for the time being* as safer than europe, is presiding over an economy ultimately headed towards a depression, who can't possibly have future revenues sufficiently large to pay for existing social programs, and whose cost-projections for medicare and medicaid have been out by tens of billions of dollars and whose cost-projections for obamacare are more than likely out by as much or more.

If I didn't know better I'd almost say this was a plan to royally screw over poor americans on an absolutely grand scale, though you shouldn't attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity and all that.

At 6/25/12 04:49 PM, Warforger wrote:
Why? Because cars are valuable and humans aren't? The point of this though is so that there are alot more people buying health insurance leaving insurance companies with more money. This means that they'll be able to pay for the people who need the insurance money, and with competition this means that they will also have to charge lower prices for health insurance. More competition would mean better coverage for each person as the companies now have more ability to pay for each person's requests.

That sounds logical to me.

the difference between car insurance and health insurance mandates are i can sell my car and cancel the insurance, with out a penalty, so i could save money if tight on funds. health insurance is different if the mandate stands if i cant afford insurance i have to pay the $700 penalty still haven't heard weather or not its a monthly or yearly fine. i'm all for people having the option to buy health insurance, though i've heard rumblings of companies that are gonna stop offering health ins. for their employees, saying the fines would be cheaper then the insurance.

At 6/25/12 07:43 PM, Ravariel wrote:
Actually, under the ACA, you would face a fine if you chose not to participate in Health Insurance. That fine is one of the main foci of the challenger's arguments against the law, as an unfair "tax" for inaction. Jail time, however, has never been a part of the ACA.

sorry, you're right, i wasn't looking at it in terms of a "fine." if you don't have insurance, you get a penalty on your income taxes.

At 6/25/12 11:38 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
What I don't want is millions of people being dependant upon the government for healthcare, when said government is running multi-trillion dollar deficits, has enormous debts they can never possibly pay off, borrows $4 billion a day, only maintains the current level of revenue because the economy is being artificially propped up by investors who think the economy is 'recovering' (spoiler alert: It's not) and who see america *for the time being* as safer than europe, is presiding over an economy ultimately headed towards a depression, who can't possibly have future revenues sufficiently large to pay for existing social programs, and whose cost-projections for medicare and medicaid have been out by tens of billions of dollars and whose cost-projections for obamacare are more than likely out by as much or more.

right now, healthcare in america is provided mostly by private entities, who charge high fees. these fees can be attributed largely due to the difficulty and expense of medical professions, and although they are significantly higher than those of similar nations, this difference is only a small portion of healthcare costs. then there exists the health insurance industry, a loose network of corporations that charge individuals or organisations premiums and will pay for their health costs if any are incurred.

this system has enormous problems. as of 2006, 44.8 million people in america do not have health insurance. many are unable to afford it, many are denied coverage by insurers who believe that as customers they will not be economical, and others choose not to purchase it. without health insurance, the upfront costs of health care are impossible for most people to afford. in fact, 50.35% of all bankruptcies were caused, at least in part, by medical fees. in 2001, this was roughly 2 million bankruptcies. health insurance does not fully cover all medical expenses. different insurers and different plans have many exemptions, co-pays, threshholds and other expense minimizing devices. as a result, 62% of those two million bankruptcies occurred despite the debtors having health insurance coverage for the duration of their illness.

as you can infer, health care costs are absurdly high. we spend more than any country on earth. our spending of GDP is skyrocketing. in 2008, health care spending was 15% of our gdp (the highest in the world); it's projected to be 19.5% by 2017 based on current trends. despite our high costs, we rank very poorly compared to other countries. the costs to businesses, who pay premiums for their employees in lieu of salary, rose by 13.9% in 2003. the annual cost increase has been above inflation since at least 1981. paying more doesn't result in more value. obesity, diabetes, and similar disorders are more common in the united states than anywhere else in the developed world, the u.s. is ranked 72nd in overall health, and life expectancy is below that of 41 other countries. our life expectancy is stagnating despite our spending on healthcare.

i think i've established that our healthcare system, at the very least, is extremely inefficient, both in costs and results. now let's move on to how universal healthcare can fix this.

universal health care refers to a wide range of different systems, the common characteristic of which is that a nation's government guarantees all its citizens access to healthcare. every nation that is a member of the oecd has uhc - except america. the single largest problem with healthcare in america is that many people don't have it. it's obvious how uhc solves this: by providing it to all citizens directly (or paying for it to be done). all developed nations other than the united states make this guarantee to their citizens, and have so far been able to uphold it. the two reasons which make a person uninsurable (insurer decisions and lack of money) will no longer exist. the second major problem with the current system is its high cost, as demonstrated above. this can be divided into two parts: individual cost, and government cost, which to the individual shows up as taxation. uhc is far cheaper due to economies of scale, the bargaining position of monopolies with regard to drugs and salaries, reduced administrative costs, and the lack of a profit motive. the average american individualspending on healthcare is $3371 per year; however, this includes the uninsured and those covered by their employers, so the actual costs are higher. to compare, australia pays $1017, canada $916, sweden, $532 and the uk $397. the first are among the highest in the world, meaning that americans pay, not including taxes, more than three times as much as citizens of any other nation. this would be somewhat justifiable if they received better healthcare, but again - 28% have no care at all, life expectancy is below all other developed nations, and general health rating is below all other developed nations.

it is commonly assumed that this difference in cost is because under uhc systems, higher taxes are required to fund the system. this is incorrect. uhc is a great deal cheaper than private healthcare, and as a result america's health related taxation is also the highest in the world. according to the oecd, in 2006, american government spending on healthcare was $2887 per person. For comparison: australia: $2106, canada: $2338, sweden: $2468, united kingdom: $2372

american healthcare taxes are in fact the highest in the oecd, with france second at $2714.

so, that all being said, it's unambiguous that every single uhc system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care to more people than the american health care system. better.

If I didn't know better I'd almost say this was a plan to royally screw over poor americans on an absolutely grand scale, though you shouldn't attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity and all that.

right now, healthcare in america is provided mostly by private entities, who charge high fees. these fees can be attributed largely due to the difficulty and expense of medical professions,

No it can't.

Enormous profits are being made in healthcare, so over time we should expect to see capital move towards the healthcare industry away from relatively over-capitalised industries, to the extent that investors seek to maximise returns. Think high pressure to low pressure.

Thus, abnormally high prices, and hence profits, can only ever be fleeting on a truly free market. Clearly, the high healthcare costs are persistent, and so it can be concluded that there exists a restriction on supply. In the case of america, this takesa number of forms. Firstly, health insurance cannot be sold across state lines, creating mini-monopolies in each state. secondly, the AMA and the AAMC restirct the number of medical professionals that can be trained, so as to artificially create a shortage of medical profesionals and so drive up the wages of exisiting professionals.

It's important to note, however, that the products under consideration are not identical. For example, Pittsburgh has more MRIs than Canada.

Yet another factor is tax laws that have created the system whereby employers pay for insurance, which drives up the price, which is fine if you're employed, but shitty if you're unemployed/between jobs.

this system has enormous problems. as of 2006, 44.8 million people in america do not have health insurance.

universal health care refers to a wide range of different systems, the common characteristic of which is that a nation's government guarantees all its citizens access to healthcare. every nation that is a member of the oecd has uhc - except america. the single largest problem with healthcare in america is that many people don't have it. it's obvious how uhc solves this: by providing it to all citizens directly (or paying for it to be done). all developed nations other than the united states make this guarantee to their citizens, and have so far been able to uphold it. the two reasons which make a person uninsurable (insurer decisions and lack of money) will no longer exist.

My first post hinted at reasons why the latter may very well be a problem in the relatively near future.

uhc is far cheaper due to economies of scale,

Economies of scale don't exist in government. The opposite is true, in fact, which is why the administration costs of the government's voluminous bureaucracy are so ridiculously high.

the bargaining position of monopolies with regard to drugs and salaries,

The american government already is responsible for 50% of all healthcare spending and spends more as a percentage of GDP than any other country. It's absurd to suggest that if they just have a bit more that prices will suddenly fall.

reduced administrative costs,

No, this is not how government works. The government has a monopoly on the post office and it is still heamaraging money.

and the lack of a profit motive.

The profit motive drives down prices (see my first paragraph). I think you mean to say that it is non-profit, and so costs can be lower.

life expectancy is below all other developed nations

Controlling for accidental death and diet, its entirely comparable to UHC countries.

it is commonly assumed that this difference in cost is because under uhc systems, higher taxes are required to fund the system. this is incorrect. uhc is a great deal cheaper than private healthcare, and as a result america's health related taxation is also the highest in the world. according to the oecd, in 2006, american government spending on healthcare was $2887 per person. For comparison: australia: $2106, canada: $2338, sweden: $2468, united kingdom: $2372

so, that all being said, it's unambiguous that every single uhc system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care to more people than the american health care system. better.

At 6/26/12 07:55 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
Enormous profits are being made in healthcare, so over time we should expect to see capital move towards the healthcare industry away from relatively over-capitalised industries, to the extent that investors seek to maximise returns. Think high pressure to low pressure.

but insurance is an overcapitalized industry. how do investors seeking a profit drive prices down? you're assuming there will be reduced costs due to some sort of market mechanism, and in practice this has never occurred; every private healthcare system that has ever existed in world history has proved inefficient and been replaced by public systems, and given the demonstrable gains that have resulted the u.s. must follow

Thus, abnormally high prices, and hence profits, can only ever be fleeting on a truly free market. Clearly, the high healthcare costs are persistent, and so it can be concluded that there exists a restriction on supply.

but we don't have a free market. the high costs are a function of something entirely different, not supply.

In the case of america, this takesa number of forms. Firstly, health insurance cannot be sold across state lines, creating mini-monopolies in each state. secondly, the AMA and the AAMC restirct the number of medical professionals that can be trained, so as to artificially create a shortage of medical profesionals and so drive up the wages of exisiting professionals.

right, if it was federally regulated we wouldn't have that issue with health insurance. as far as the ama/aamc goes, i'm assuimg you're a fan of freidman and rockwell. the restrictions were put in place a while ago to prevent a surplus of medical practitioners, and once they realized there were not enough they reversed their restrictions. the ama is currently lobbying for the expansion of medical education.

It's important to note, however, that the products under consideration are not identical. For example, Pittsburgh has more MRIs than Canada.

which is a symptom of overspending on medical tech. i don't even know if that's true but even if it is, it's not very surprising. per million people, the united states has 3 times as many mri units as the average among the 30 oecd nations (25.9 vs 8.4).

The number who are actually unable to afford insurance, however, is far, far lower.

tell me, then, of those people who are able to afford insurance, what are their plans like? how comprehensive is it? how much are their co-pays?

My first post hinted at reasons why the latter may very well be a problem in the relatively near future.

i don't think it will be a problem at all. how will that be a problem?

Economies of scale don't exist in government. The opposite is true, in fact, which is why the administration costs of the government's voluminous bureaucracy are so ridiculously high.

sure they do. also, uhc will involve much less bureaucracy than is commonly assumed, as it can replace the existing partial systems like medicare and also the plethora of state specific programs.

The american government already is responsible for 50% of all healthcare spending and spends more as a percentage of GDP than any other country. It's absurd to suggest that if they just have a bit more that prices will suddenly fall.

it's absurd to suggest otherwise, there's a big chunk of my post you haven't addressed which makes this case rather clearly.

No, this is not how government works. The government has a monopoly on the post office and it is still heamaraging money.

there is absolutely no comparison of a post office and universal health care.

The profit motive drives down prices (see my first paragraph). I think you mean to say that it is non-profit, and so costs can be lower.

what evidence is there that profit motives drive down prices? it's pretty apparent that this isn't the case.

Controlling for accidental death and diet, its entirely comparable to UHC countries.

At 6/26/12 03:55 PM, Feoric wrote:
but insurance is an overcapitalized industry. how do investors seeking a profit drive prices down?

Competition, duh.

you're assuming there will be reduced costs due to some sort of market mechanism, and in practice this has never occurred; every private healthcare system that has ever existed in world history has proved inefficient and been replaced by public systems, and given the demonstrable gains that have resulted the u.s. must follow

the restrictions were put in place a while ago to prevent a surplus of medical practitioners, and once they realized there were not enough they reversed their restrictions. the ama is currently lobbying for the expansion of medical education.

So, yeah, I was correct.

which is a symptom of overspending on medical tech. i don't even know if that's true but even if it is, it's not very surprising. per million people, the united states has 3 times as many mri units as the average among the 30 oecd nations (25.9 vs 8.4).

By what metric is it overspending? I don't necessarily disagree, but why do you think they're spending too much? Isn't more better?

tell me, then, of those people who are able to afford insurance, what are their plans like? how comprehensive is it? how much are their co-pays?

This is irrelevant to your point.

i don't think it will be a problem at all. how will that be a problem?

Read my first post. America is economically doomed.

sure they do. also, uhc will involve much less bureaucracy than is commonly assumed

So, you're saying UHC would be magically different to, you know, literally ever single other government department tht has ever existed?

there is absolutely no comparison of a post office and universal health care.

Of course there is. Why do you treat healthcare as some special thing.

By your logic, the post office should be running perfectly. They are a monopoly and they don't operate for profit. Why wouldn't it be performing excellently?

what evidence is there that profit motives drive down prices?

Um, logic. If people, say, started businesses in what they personally wanted, instead of trying to maximise profit, then there would be an oversupply of certain businesses and an undersupply of other businesses.

BEcause of the profit motive, people start businesses where there is an undersupply (i.e where profiots are highest) which results in lower prices because the same money chasing more goods leads to lower prices. basic supply and demand.

it's pretty apparent that this isn't the case.

Because america is very, very far from being a free market.

it is.

..which suggests that it's not as much to do with healthcare cost./quality as you were suggesting.

not too sure what you think you read.

Read my first post again. I didnt even say that UHC was bad, I said that america cant afford it and that its bad to make people dependant upon the government when there are going to be ENORMOUS budget problems in the near future.

At 6/25/12 11:15 PM, Korriken wrote:
you're right, we'd be having conversation on topics more like this instead.

I love how opponents cite Britain...yet say nothing about Canada and it's system, a system which Canadians by and large (at least the ones I personally know and the ones I see on TV talking about it) seem to be pretty darn happy with. But yeah...I guess it's not convenient to talk about systems that don't have a nifty amount of articles pointing out problems and flaws huh?

Besides, Obamacare was just the first step. 2nd step (If Obamacare isn't killed) is to bankrupt the insurance companies. once they're out of the way, there 'no choice but to implement a single payer system'

Well...I'm tempted as hell to use what I call "The Darkgrave Defense" and simply write off what you're saying as "conspiracy theory nonsense" because it certainly does sound like it. But instead I'm going to do the right thing and ask you to back that up with something that supports the idea...because right now all I see is a law that's going to make the insurance companies RICHER because they'll have more customers, and the lawmakers HOPE it will then drive prices for the individual customer down because the insurance companies will no longer hike premiums and use the defense that it's because younger, healthier people opt out of their services.

You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

At 6/25/12 11:38 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
What I don't want is millions of people being dependant upon the government for healthcare,

Which this law does. It makes people continue to be dependent upon insurance companies for any kind of healthcare insurance...which has become absolutely essential to getting healthcare. So you already have what you want...why are you upset again?

when said government is running multi-trillion dollar deficits,

Which comes from things that aren't actually what's under discussion...but ok.

has enormous debts they can never possibly pay off,

Which sucks, but since other countries do the EXACT same thing because debt has become something that isn't really meant to be paid off...but a tool to be used as leverage in negotiations (or in worse scenarios, a cudgel in said negotiations)...I've never overly concerned myself with debt as much as I've concerned myself with who holds the IOU and for how much.

borrows $4 billion a day,

Link? Something? Why do people claim these things without a hyperlink to back it...when did we stop demanding that in here when we are going to claim things that might not be "common knowledge"?

only maintains the current level of revenue because the economy is being artificially propped up by investors who think the economy is 'recovering' (spoiler alert: It's not) and who see america *for the time being* as safer than europe,

I reiterate the above.

is presiding over an economy ultimately headed towards a depression,

Spoiler alert: We HAD a depression. That wasn't a recession, it was a depression, we're digging out of it right now. The only thing that kept it from being as BAD as the '29 collapse were the GOVERNMENT safeguards that prevent such things, and public trust in those safeguards. See? Government does get it right sometimes (not often, but sometimes).

who can't possibly have future revenues sufficiently large to pay for existing social programs, and whose cost-projections for medicare and medicaid have been out by tens of billions of dollars and whose cost-projections for obamacare are more than likely out by as much or more.

"more then likely" but you can't prove it...ok...I see where we're going here...well, we know what they say about assumption.

You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

Fisking my post makes no sense, especially considering you change between attacking indiviudal facts, and attacking their relevance to the topic. Clearly my entire post wa making a unifed point, which was that demands for the government to provide healthcare to everyone is particuarly stupid and dangerous given the enormous economic problems america is facing the tremendous budget problems the government will have in the near-future. How many times does it have to be said before liberals will understand, the american government has no money, and this will only grow more true over time.

At 6/27/12 12:39 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Which this law does. It makes people continue to be dependent upon insurance companies for any kind of healthcare insurance...which has become absolutely essential to getting healthcare. So you already have what you want...why are you upset again?

This law is obviously designed as a stepping stone towards single-payer, and it is reasonable to assume that essentially everyone who supports this act supports a single-payer system. Do you really think liberals support this because it means more money for insurance companies?

Which comes from things that aren't actually what's under discussion...but ok.

The government isn't coming close to covering current spending. There's no way that they will be able to cover the cost of a single-payer system.

I've never overly concerned myself with debt as much as I've concerned myself with who holds the IOU and for how much.

Is this meant to be reassuring?

borrows $4 billion a day,

Link? Something? Why do people claim these things without a hyperlink to back it...when did we stop demanding that in here when we are going to claim things that might not be "common knowledge"?

If you are unaware of facts that should be common knowlege, I think the onus is on you to perform the 5 second google search. This is not exactly an obscure statistic.

Spoiler alert: We HAD a depression. That wasn't a recession, it was a depression,

i agree, but most people don't use the terms like that so I avoid it too.

we're digging out of it right now. The only thing that kept it from being as BAD as the '29 collapse were the GOVERNMENT safeguards that prevent such things, and public trust in those safeguards. See? Government does get it right sometimes (not often, but sometimes).

There's going to be a collapse, it's inevitable (essentially). Government made the depression softer, but they've delyaed the real crash, which is going to be far worse as a result. Additionally, they were responsible for the boom in the first place, which was responisble for the crash and hence the depression.
They've also prolonged the (non-existent) recovery. There was a depression in 1921 caused by a stock market crash WORSE than that in 1929 (and 2008), but the economy recovered quickly because Woodrow Wilson had a stroke and so he was unable to implement the kinds of "recovery" program we saw after 1929 and 2008, and so depsite there being a more pronounced ecpnomic contraction, bad investments were able to be liquedated and reallocated to productive uses, instead of being tied up in projects that s\artificially appeared profitable due to boom conditions.

So government has nothing to be proud of.

"more then likely" but you can't prove it...ok...I see where we're going here...well, we know what they say about assumption.

jesus christ

so they've been catastrophically wrong in the past, but THIS TIME, now that our black messiah is in charge, they'll magically be right.

...what? insurers face very little competition; virtually no competition at all. health insurance is one of the most concentrated markets in the u.s.

FALSE. Healthcare was working extraordinarily well in america until the government "fixed" it.

the crux of this article is about medical care provided by fraternal societies, which i honestly haven't heard before. and unless you can point to a specific passage in that article, i can't find anything that definitively makes the case that the government ruined healthcare. long seems to make the case that this was by crushing fraternal societies, which, is certainly a unique argument to make.

because that's the case. the demand for healthcare really sees no limit, especially if cost is not a factor for the consumer. shopping around for emergency care when you really need it is impossible. tell me, then, how do you put a limit on how much youâEUTMre going to demand if your life is literally at stake? the supply of physicians and providers is not driven by normal market forces. there's a lot of medical students going into specialized fields forr reasons that arenâEUTMt necessarily fitting with the supply-demand curve. specialization is driven by income, especially because specialists make considerably more in most cases than primary care physicians.

the argument for supply and demand carries with it a few assumptions. when those assumptions are violated, supply and demand doesn't work out. two major assumptions are violated by our current healthcare system: the first is that consumers have price/quality information so they can shop around for the best value; the second is that consumers actually pay the price of what they buy.

for the first one, how do consumers choose the best value? firstly, if they're smart, they'll do research on a product they want to buy. hypothetically, if you're going to buy a new hard drive, you're going to want to see how much rpm the disk has, how big the size is, etc. without those important bits of information, how can consumers choose the best value? they canâEUTMt! and thus, thereâEUTMs not much incentive for hard drive manufacturers to take risks to improve drives because it wonâEUTMt help them make more money if everybody is blindly shooting in the dark. innovation is stifled without that incentive. to go back to healthcare, why would a doctorâEUTMs office make an innovation, such as to install an electronic medical record that would temporarily disrupt process flows and require a large upfront cost if it wonâEUTMt help convince more patients to come? (hint: because they can).

secondly, although consumers pay the full cost for their healthcare, they have already done it through insurance premiums or reduced salary. but they donâEUTMt see that full price directly like itâEUTMs coming straight out of their wallet, so they donâEUTMt perceive that theyâEUTMre paying the price, so they donâEUTMt care so much what the price is. this inflates demand in a big way! think about the man whose father is about to die. heâEUTMll tell the doctor to do whatever it takes to keep the father alive, but how willing would he be to do that if the man knew he was going to have to pay 750 grand right out of his own bank account?

So, yeah, I was correct.

yes and no. the restrictions were in place, but it's worth mentioning that they aren't anymore.

By what metric is it overspending? I don't necessarily disagree, but why do you think they're spending too much? Isn't more better?

no, more is not better. it's pretty apparent: i've shown you how much the u.s. pays for healthcare related expenditures and compared our health statistics to other countries and we're far far behind every developed nation in the world. it may seem counter-intuitive (doesn't buying more of the best stuff put you in a better position?!) but the numbers don't lie.

This is irrelevant to your point.

no, it isn't, because we don't know how much insurance they're getting. what plan are we talking about? not all insurance is the same.

Read my first post. America is economically doomed.

you're welcome to start another thread for this, i'll gladly debate you on this but it'll just clog up this thread.

So, you're saying UHC would be magically different to, you know, literally ever single other government department tht has ever existed?

well, firstly, there are quite a lot of governmental departments. i'm not too sure how you're going to compare the DTRA to, say, the SBA. and i'm not too sure if there is a problem with either of those departments, are you?

Of course there is. Why do you treat healthcare as some special thing.

because the government isn't going to handle mail the same way they're going to handle healthcare? it's like apples to oranges.

By your logic, the post office should be running perfectly. They are a monopoly and they don't operate for profit. Why wouldn't it be performing excellently?

the post office isn't quite a monopoly (hint: ups, fedex, dhl). the usps has, at every turn, been subject to "starve the beast" measures that have forced it to raise prices, like the mandated employee superannuation investment that has now resulted in some 70 years of pre-invested pension pay.

Um, logic. If people, say, started businesses in what they personally wanted, instead of trying to maximise profit, then there would be an oversupply of certain businesses and an undersupply of other businesses.

BEcause of the profit motive, people start businesses where there is an undersupply (i.e where profiots are highest) which results in lower prices because the same money chasing more goods leads to lower prices. basic supply and demand.

the "free market" isn't some magical cure-all solution. you fail to recognise that there is a service the free market is inefficient at providing, and to decide it should better be provided by the government. canada, which is one of the worst performing UHC systems, is also one of the most 'free market'. this may not be a coincidence. regardless, even in canada people pay significantly less for their healthcare and receive, on average, better care.
seriously, look at how much we spend, only to be ranked 72nd in overall health. every single uhc system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care to more people than the american health care system; how does more of what we already have make things better? only the government has the power to ensure that everyone has access to medical care and the leverage to counteract the inherit inequities of profiting from disease.

Read my first post again. I didnt even say that UHC was bad, I said that america cant afford it and that its bad to make people dependant upon the government when there are going to be ENORMOUS budget problems in the near future.

i don't see how you can honestly think that when it's pretty clear that not only can we afford it, but we'll also be saving money.

because that's the case. the demand for healthcare really sees no limit, especially if cost is not a factor for the consumer. shopping around for emergency care when you really need it is impossible. tell me, then, how do you put a limit on how much you're going to demand if your life is literally at stake? the supply of physicians and providers is not driven by normal market forces. there's a lot of medical students going into specialized fields forr reasons that aren't necessarily fitting with the supply-demand curve. specialization is driven by income, especially because specialists make considerably more in most cases than primary care physicians.

the argument for supply and demand carries with it a few assumptions. when those assumptions are violated, supply and demand doesn't work out. two major assumptions are violated by our current healthcare system: the first is that consumers have price/quality information so they can shop around for the best value; the second is that consumers actually pay the price of what they buy.

for the first one, how do consumers choose the best value? firstly, if they're smart, they'll do research on a product they want to buy. hypothetically, if you're going to buy a new hard drive, you're going to want to see how much rpm the disk has, how big the size is, etc. without those important bits of information, how can consumers choose the best value? they can't! and thus, there's not much incentive for hard drive manufacturers to take risks to improve drives because it won't help them make more money if everybody is blindly shooting in the dark. innovation is stifled without that incentive. to go back to healthcare, why would a doctor's office make an innovation, such as to install an electronic medical record that would temporarily disrupt process flows and require a large upfront cost if it won't help convince more patients to come? (hint: because they can).

secondly, although consumers pay the full cost for their healthcare, they have already done it through insurance premiums or reduced salary. but they don't see that full price directly like it's coming straight out of their wallet, so they don't perceive that they're paying the price, so they don't care so much what the price is. this inflates demand in a big way! think about the man whose father is about to die. he'll tell the doctor to do whatever it takes to keep the father alive, but how willing would he be to do that if the man knew he was going to have to pay 750 grand right out of his own bank account?

At 6/27/12 04:20 AM, Feoric wrote:
...what? insurers face very little competition; virtually no competition at all. health insurance is one of the most concentrated markets in the u.s.

Yes, because supply is restricted due to laws preventing sale across state lines. I already explained this.

i can't find anything that definitively makes the case that the government ruined healthcare.

Medical societies like the AMA imposed sanctions on doctors who dared to sign lodge practice contracts. This might have been less effective if such medical societies had not had access to government power; but in fact, thanks to governmental grants of privilege, they controlled the medical licensure procedure, thus ensuring that those in their disfavor would be denied the right to practice medicine.

Such licensure laws also offered the medical establishment a less overt way of combating lodge practice. It was during this period that the AMA made the requirements for medical licensure far more strict than they had previously been. Their reason, they claimed, was to raise the quality of medical care. But the result was that the number of physicians fell, competition dwindled, and medical fees rose; the vast pool of physicians bidding for lodge practice contracts had been abolished. As with any market good, artifical restrictions on supply created higher prices âEU" a particular hardship for the working-class members of fraternal societies.

be honest, did you read any of the sources i linked?

No, because you used them in explaining cost differences and the such, not in explaining why costs were higher.

because that's the case. the demand for healthcare really sees no limit, especially if cost is not a factor for the consumer. shopping around for emergency care when you really need it is impossible. tell me, then, how do you put a limit on how much youÃ¢EUTMre going to demand if your life is literally at stake?

Emergency care is free for everyone. In any case, if you want to to make the case that demand for healthcare is completely elastic, then why aren't prices even higher?

the supply of physicians and providers is not driven by normal market forces.

Because of the aamc. We've already established this.

the first is that consumers have price/quality information so they can shop around for the best value;

The reason they can't shop around is because of laws preventing sale of insurance across state borders. But this still fits supply and demand, because it is effectivelya restriction on supply.

the second is that consumers actually pay the price of what they buy.

What

it wont help them make more money if everybody is blindly shooting in the dark.

Do you have any evidence to suggest people are 'shooting in the dark when they choose healthcare providers?

innovation is stifled without that incentive. to go back to healthcare, why would a doctorÃ¢EUTMs office make an innovation, such as to install an electronic medical record that would temporarily disrupt process flows and require a large upfront cost if it wonÃ¢EUTMt help convince more patients to come? (hint: because they can).

I have no idea what you're trying to say, but in that particular example, an electronic database would be established to same time and labor, not to get more paitents.

secondly, although consumers pay the full cost for their healthcare, they have already done it through insurance premiums or reduced salary. but they donÃ¢EUTMt see that full price directly like itÃ¢EUTMs coming straight out of their wallet, so they donÃ¢EUTMt perceive that theyÃ¢EUTMre paying the price, so they donÃ¢EUTMt care so much what the price is. this inflates demand in a big way!

Insurers are going to care what the price is, otherwise they can't make money.

think about the man whose father is about to die. heÃ¢EUTMll tell the doctor to do whatever it takes to keep the father alive, but how willing would he be to do that if the man knew he was going to have to pay 750 grand right out of his own bank account?

Again, I have no idea what you're trying to say and how it relates to the topic.

yes and no. the restrictions were in place, but it's worth mentioning that they aren't anymore.

Nooo, you said they are currently lobbying, which means they will (/might) be lifted in the future.

no, more is not better. it's pretty apparent: i've shown you how much the u.s. pays for healthcare related expenditures and compared our health statistics to other countries and we're far far behind every developed nation in the world. it may seem counter-intuitive (doesn't buying more of the best stuff put you in a better position?!) but the numbers don't lie.

So your argument is that government should monopolise healthcare, provide less services, and this will result in better health outcomes.
O-kay....

no, it isn't, because we don't know how much insurance they're getting. what plan are we talking about? not all insurance is the same.

How is this relevant to the fact that X million americans don't have insurance?

you're welcome to start another thread for this, i'll gladly debate you on this but it'll just clog up this thread.

America has $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. It has committed to spending money on existing social programs that it doesn't have and according to it's own projections won't have (and these projections usually lean towards things going better rather than worse). There is simply no way it will be cover the additional trillions in spending that UHC requires.

i'm not too sure if there is a problem with either of those departments, are you?

I'm not sure, but they almost certainly operate inefficiently and spend way too much money.

because the government isn't going to handle mail the same way they're going to handle healthcare?

Why?

the post office isn't quite a monopoly

There's private health insurance in UHC countries.

mandated employee superannuation investment that has now resulted in some 70 years of pre-invested pension pay.

So you agree government programs have to deal with a lot of bullshit?

the "free market" isn't some magical cure-all solution. you fail to recognise that there is a service the free market is inefficient at providing, and to decide it should better be provided by the government.

Except, this isn't the case, and prices were far lower when america did have a free market.

canada, which is one of the worst performing UHC systems, is also one of the most 'free market'.

There is no such thing as "free-market UHC". Free markets are better at everything, but entirely government controlled *can* be better than half-controlled/half-private.

on average, better care.

You're going to have to expalin this, because it takes longer for a human to get an MRI than a dog.

seriously, look at how much we spend, only to be ranked 72nd in overall health.

There are other factors. America obviously eatrs a lot worse than most countries, which alone can probably explain most of the difference. Further, you have to control for race. Blacks are much more prone to diseases such as diabetes and heart disease (controlling for diet), and so tend to drag down statistics regarding health outcomes.